Corona Court flounders

To Take A Stand
By Oscar P. Lagman, Jr.
Business World

Right after he was sworn in as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Renato Corona said: “I aim to improve the judiciary even further in every aspect possible and strengthen the great institution of the Supreme Court.” That is probably the reason that the Corona Court, after clearing Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo of plagiarism charges, came down hard on the UP Law dean and 37 faculty members who demanded the resignation of Del Castillo.

A week after absolving Del Castillo, the Corona Court issued a show-cause contempt order to UP Law Dean Marvic Loren and 37 members of the faculty and gave them 10 days within which to explain why they should not be sanctioned for such act. The court said the UP law professors’ call for Del Castillo’s resignation was contrary to the faculty’s obligation as law professors and officers of the court and violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

In the legal community, the Supreme Court’s pronouncement is law. And any lawyer who questions the Supreme Court’s ruling can be cited for contempt. But Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales said the court’s show-cause order was “nothing but an abrasive flexing of the judicial muscle.” Associate Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno also pointed out that “it is not the place of the Court to seek revenge against those who, in their wish to see reform in the judiciary, have the courage to say what is wrong with it. The Court finds its legitimacy in demonstrating its moral vein case after case, not in flaunting its judicial brawn.”

Ateneo Law Dean Cesar Villanueva said that the law school respects the court’s decision to absolve Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo, an alumnus of the law school and husband of its former dean, Cynthia Roxas-del Castillo. But Ateneo’s Loyola Schools, the college department of the university, has said it will stick to its own Code of Academic Integrity in dealing with plagiarism cases. The act of attributing to one’s self what is not one’s work, whether intentional or out of neglect, is sufficient to conclude that plagiarism has occurred,” the Loyola Schools said.

The Supreme Court, already weakened by the legally infirm appointment of Corona as Chief Justice and by its overload of people perceived to be beholden to Gloria Arroyo, weakened further when it absolved Justice Del Castillo of plagiarism. The Corona Court declared that Justice Del Castillo did not commit plagiarism because his researcher, Michelle Juan, inadvertently deleted the footnotes while preparing the decision. The court said, “Notably, neither Justice Del Castillo nor his researcher had a motive or reason for omitting attribution for lifted passages.” Thus, plagiarism was not committed because there was no malicious intent to remove the attribution marks, said the Corona Court.

But to the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines, an association of 1,290 Catholic schools, colleges, and universities, the Supreme Court decision “abets a culture of intellectual sloth and dishonesty. For plagiarism is not only a legal issue but more importantly, a moral one.” (Underscoring is CEAP’s.)
The Coordinating Council of Private Educational Associations, the umbrella organization of the various associations of schools, colleges, and universities in the country, expressed alarm at the Corona Court ruling that plagiarism is not committed if there is no malicious intent. The council asserted that “plagiarism is intellectual dishonesty. It is thievery of intellectual property. In the world of the academe, it is punished most severely. To treat plagiarism in a cavalier fashion is to fling the door wide open to flagrant violations against intellectual property and invite intellectual thefts without fear of punitive sanction.” The council counts as its affiliates the aforementioned Catholic Educational Association, the Association of Christian Schools, Colleges, and Universities, the Philippine Association of Private Schools, Colleges, and Universities, and the Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities.

With 12 members of the court seen to have been appointed to the court not to serve the country and the ends of justice but to save their patron by blocking her being brought to justice, the citizenry has looked askance at the court. With the academic world practically accusing them of intellectual dishonesty, the Corona Court can only flounder from hereon.

It is ironic that the chief of the court that is said to have a cavalier attitude toward plagiarism has as one of his advocacies, according to a Judicial and Bar Council profile on him, the formation of strong moral and ethical values in the legal profession. Sardonic, too, is that the person accused of plagiarism, which in the academic world is intellectual dishonesty and thievery of intellectual property, is a pre-bar reviewer in Legal Ethics. The researcher who accidentally deleted the attributions while editing her draft taught legal research. I am certain she emphasized in class the importance of proper attribution of sources. All three are graduates of the same law school and all teach or taught in that school.

http://www.bworldonline.com/main/content.php?id=21236